This chapter presents the programme’s key research questions in detail (section 1). It also summarises CRU’s track record in the area of security and justice (section 2).

Both the threat and the occurrence of disorder and violence are most pronounced in fragile and crisis situations and states. This is in part because many are embroiled in episodes of recurrent conflict and in part because they feature fewer restraints on the exercise of violence, including in its more naked forms.[15] It is in these situations that the legacies of conflict are strongest, the possibilities for positive change slimmest and the provision of security and justice of almost any kind most urgent. It is also in these situations that power is contested, marginalisation is common and corruption rife. Finally, it is in these situations that many of the world’s poor continue to live and where a significant percentage of the world’s violent deaths occurs.[16] For these reasons, CRU’s Security and Justice Research Programme filters the questions contained in figure 1 above through the lenses of fragility and crisis.

Geographically, this introduces a focus on Latin America, Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.[17] Thematically, it introduces a focus on violence at the sharp edge of development considered as a process of social contestation. Simply put, the research programme focuses on countries where levels of organised violence (or the threat thereof) are structurally high – whether the violence is political, terrorist, criminal or hybrid in nature – and where violence has become a part of daily life, of methods of rule or of competition for power, and where mistrust is high.

Key research questions

Research question #1– How do elite interests, coalitions and pacts influence the organisation and provision of security and justice?[18]

Where political authority is severely contested and/or central enforcement is absent, strong incentives exist to maintain the ability to wield violence as necessary. Elites typically have the means to do so and therefore are likely to use security and justice organisations – through which this ability manifests itself – to protect their interests, whether these are defined at the individual, group or national level.[19] They generally do so as part of processes of coalition formation and deal-making with other elite sub-groups.[20] As narrower coalitions will tend to increase the profitability and lower the transaction cost of maintaining such deals, these pacts are often exclusionary and tend to partially privatise security and justice. This typically widens the gap between the ‘heart of power’ and the general population, which can lead to significant – if not violent – social contestation. In consequence, a key dilemma is how elites can be incentivised to take a more public-goods-based approach to the institutionalisation, organisation and delivery of security and justice. On this basis, three more detailed research questions will guide the programme:

Research question #2 – How is local innovation in security and justice solutions addressing 21st-century violence?

It is clear that providing security and justice in fragile environments solely through the central state – or what is left of it – is as fraught with difficulties as is providing security and justice through customary and sub-state providers. While any efforts made by the state are very likely to be hampered by its orientation towards elites, poor accountability and limited reach, customary providers often suffer from a limited scale and level of sophistication, as well as the perpetuation of existing social hierarchies. To this challenge must be added the phenomenon of inter- and transnational influences on security and justice provision, such as organised crime and franchised terrorism, and the question of what can be done to counter their effects through regulatory and enforcement action across borders. The need to weld together elements of these three dimensions of security and justice provision – state, customary and transborder – in cogent responses, makes their provision difficult in the best of circumstances but especially so in fragile ones. Local innovation is likely to be critical. Three specific research questions will guide this area of the programme:

Research question #3– How can the quality of international support for security and justice development be improved?

International support for security and justice development retains strong notions both of social engineering and of exporting blueprints, with OECD countries implicitly used as models and a Weberian monopoly on the use of violence as desired end-state. Neither international political thinking about development nor the international toolkit has been able to develop much in the way of operating modalities that can come to terms with the realities of power politics, patronage and legal pluralism in fragile settings. This has perpetuated relatively technical approaches that leave local systems of patronage-based governance undisturbed and legacies of violence unaddressed. The specific research questions that will guide this area of the programme include:

Our track record in security and justice research

Clingendael’s Conflict Research Unit can demonstrate a credible track record for generating innovative research approaches and rigorous analysis, and impactful outreach in the area of security and justice. We present selected work below and briefly discuss its results and impact.